Worst British Monarchs

[Iluvbertie]

Do they really have two children with the name George?

No George V and Mary didn't name two sons George.

George VI was born on December 14th the anniversary of Prince Albert's death (and Princess Alice's - Prince Philip's grandmother's death) so he was named Albert and called Bertie just like his grandfather, Edward VII (Edward VIII was called David within the family).

After Edward VIII deserted his duty to the nation and his family over the abdication George VI wanted to return some stability to the throne and chose to associate himself with his father's reign and so took the regnal name George. He was still called Bertie within the family.

The Duke of Kent was always called George by the family and is the father of the current Kent family. He was the son who was killed on active service during WWII and married Princess Marina of Greece - a cousin of Prince Philip's.

 

[EIIR-Windsor]

We could also say that Edward VIII abdicated for love.
But I think that we must also recognize that His brother accepted the throne for love for His Nation and His People. We have to remember that for ever and ever.
I think he was one of the best monarchs the Nation has ever seen.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Do you mean George VI was the best monarch?

 

[EIIR-Windsor]

Naturally, my friend.
George VI (Bertie) led Great Britain and the Empire through the worst period which humanity has ever seen. He remained with Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother after 1952) in London with His Own People under the Wehrmacht's bombings.
We have to remember that he died, he sacrificed His Life for His People and that (like many other things he have done) puts him among the best Kings the Nation and Empire have ever seen.
Do You agree with me?

 

[Lumutqueen]

I disagree with your assessment that it's the worst period which humanity has ever seen.
I applaud him that he remained in london with his family during the bombings, and that he ascended the throne did an amazing job even though he was not suppose to.
I wouldn't say that he "sacrificed" his life for his country, yes the stress may have brought on an early death, but nothing about sacrificing himself.

I agree he was a good king, but for different reasons than you do I think. Oh and i'm not your friend, not yet anyway.

 

[EIIR-Windsor]

Sorry for the friend.
I thought that Monarchists and Royal Funs are all friens.
However we can say that he sacrificed part of His Life, but I think every Royal, even not monarch, sacrified His/Her Life to His country.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I wouldn't use the word sacrificed. It makes them sound like they did it unwillingly, to me anyway.
Royals, especially George would never have said no to becoming King, he may not have been prepared for it, but he had no choice in the matter.
He didn't, IMO do anything special, yes he led his country through the WW2, but any royal monarch would have done the same.

Not every royal is totally commited to being a royal, today the "job" if you can call it that, is nothing to be sacrificed for. That sense of duty of honour, will IMO die out with the Kings and Queens at the moment.

 

[EIIR-Windsor]

I agree with You in much You sustain.
However I think that if we talk about today, scarificed is a big word, but if talk about Bertie's times we grant to use the word "sacrificed".

 

[Lumutqueen]

But we are talking in today, and the word sacrificed doesn't mean the same as it did back then.
And even in Bertie's time, yes he gave up a fairly normal lifestyle being the Duke of York. But other than that, he didn't do anything else. His wife was there to see him through his years, and he struggled possible in the early years but he had his mother and his wife for support.

 

[EIIR-Windsor]

However He's been a very good King.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Naturally, my friend.
George VI (Bertie) led Great Britain and the Empire through the worst period which humanity has ever seen. He remained with Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother after 1952) in London with His Own People under the Wehrmacht's bombings.
We have to remember that he died, he sacrificed His Life for His People and that (like many other things he have done) puts him among the best Kings the Nation and Empire have ever seen.
Do You agree with me?

I agree with a lot of what you have to say but one thing - it was the Luftwaffe not the Wehrmacht that bombed London (the Luftwaffe was the airforce and the Wehrmacht was the army).


I do think that World War II was the worst time in humanities history - over 100 million people died throughout the world as a direct result of the war and most of them were civilians.

 

[Mermaid1962]

George VI served as king unwillingly, in the sense that he never wanted to be king and was appalled and horrified when his brother abdicated. I don't think that his sacrifice was necessarily greater than any other Briton during the war; but I do believe that he and the Queen became loved not just because they were there, but because they were so visible in their there-ness. George VI put on his uniform at the beginning of the war and didn't take it off IIRC until its end. He knew what being in war was like, due to his experience at Jutland; and so I think that he would have brought that experience into his dealing with soldiers, airmen, and sailors. George VI had a friendly, ordinary way of dealing with people. Personally, I think that it would have made a difference to me if my home and perhaps family had been destroyed by a bomb and my King and Queen showed up the next day to offer encouragement and sympathy. Don't forget also that he lost a brother through an aircrash; so he did have personal grief as well as the burden of knowing that the whole nation, and the Empire, were looking to him for courage.

I wouldn't use the word sacrificed. It makes them sound like they did it unwillingly, to me anyway.
Royals, especially George would never have said no to becoming King, he may not have been prepared for it, but he had no choice in the matter.
.

 

[EIIR-Windsor]

@Iluvbertie
Sorry, Luftwaffe, I have confused them.

@Mermaid1962
I agree with a lot of what You've said.

 

[Cadiva]

I disagree with your assessment that it's the worst period which humanity has ever seen.

What would you say has been worse than the 1939-45 War, other than the 1914-18 War that is?

My worst monarchs would be Edward II and Richard II. Both failed on a number of levels even outside of the normal behaviour of Kings at that time. Edward II because he was weak and couldn't stand up to the pressures of not only his favourites but also the nobles that were his enemies.
Richard II because he believed too much in the Royal Perogative and wouldn't take advice, even when it was being given by those who were more experienced at ruling than he was. However, both of these Monarchs were products of their upbringing and of their time and in neither case was their behaviour out of the norm for ultimate rulers.

I also think it's wrong to describe Edward IV as a poor Monarch as he is, primarily, responsible for the changes to the Catholic Church which ultimately resulted in the codification of the Church of England. He was an ardent Reformist and was heavily influenced by the Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley.
I think it's also wrong to describe Henry VIII as a bad monarch. He was completely of his time both in terms of his ruthless execution of his Royal Power and also in his steadfast determination to secure a legitimate male offspring to inherit his Throne. It was, after all, only one generation before him that the crown had been seized through two claimants taking to the field to do battle (although his father by all accounts stayed off to one side while his troops got on with it).

 

[Iluvbertie]

What would you say has been worse than the 1939-45 War, other than the 1914-18 War that is?

My worst monarchs would be Edward II and Richard II. Both failed on a number of levels even outside of the normal behaviour of Kings at that time. Edward II because he was weak and couldn't stand up to the pressures of not only his favourites but also the nobles that were his enemies.
Richard II because he believed too much in the Royal Perogative and wouldn't take advice, even when it was being given by those who were more experienced at ruling than he was. However, both of these Monarchs were products of their upbringing and of their time and in neither case was their behaviour out of the norm for ultimate rulers.

I also think it's wrong to describe Edward IV as a poor Monarch as he is, primarily, responsible for the changes to the Catholic Church which ultimately resulted in the codification of the Church of England. He was an ardent Reformist and was heavily influenced by the Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley.
I think it's also wrong to describe Henry VIII as a bad monarch. He was completely of his time both in terms of his ruthless execution of his Royal Power and also in his steadfast determination to secure a legitimate male offspring to inherit his Throne. It was, after all, only one generation before him that the crown had been seized through two claimants taking to the field to do battle (although his father by all accounts stayed off to one side while his troops got on with it).

World War I might have seen more soldiers die than WWII but the second war saw way more people die and more devastation by a long way than WWI. Most of the devastation in WWI was restricted to northern France and Belgium whereas WWII saw Europe wide devastation along with Asia wide devastation and literally millions dead (about 10 times as many as died in WWI). In fact more people died in between 1918-1919 from the flu than actually died during the war (that was the Spanish Influenze pandemic).

I also think you mean Edward VI not Edward IV (typo I am sure). Edward VI was also only 16 when he died so he had barely taken over the total reigns of power before he died so it is hard to criticise him for being under the influence of others.


I do agree with your assessment of Henry VIII. We have the advantage of hindsight to realise that woman can be great monarchs but the only real example he had in England was the Empress Maud in the 1100s that had lead to the anarchy under Stephen. He didn't know that his own daughter would go down as one of England's finest ever monarchs.

Henry is one of my favourite monarch and one I rate as one of the best - certainly before the constitutional monarchs we have now. I don't like trying to compare monarchs like George VI with others like Henry VIII because of their totally different roles and powers.

 

[Cadiva]

I also think you mean Edward VI not Edward IV (typo I am sure). Edward VI was also only 16 when he died so he had barely taken over the total reigns of power before he died so it is hard to criticise him for being under the influence of others.

I meant Edward VI yes, I was replying to someone else who had said Britain (England and Wales at that time) could have done without him. I was pointing out that he was, in fact, the Monarch who was most responsible for codifying what ended up as the Church of England.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I meant Edward VI yes, I was replying to someone else who had said Britain (England and Wales at that time) could have done without him. I was pointing out that he was, in fact, the Monarch who was most responsible for codifying what ended up as the Church of England.

He might have signed the relevant legislation but he was lead to passing it and of course his decisions were all repealed by Mary and then Elizabeth established a more moderate Church of England - it is really Elizabeth who brought about the present Church of England (Edward's reign saw the 39 articles agreed on but the rest of the Church is Elizabethan.)

 

[Cadiva]

He might have signed the relevant legislation but he was lead to passing it and of course his decisions were all repealed by Mary and then Elizabeth established a more moderate Church of England - it is really Elizabeth who brought about the present Church of England (Edward's reign saw the 39 articles agreed on but the rest of the Church is Elizabethan.)

The history of the Church of England recognises that it was Edward VI who brought about the major break away from the "Catholic" service through the work of Thomas Cramer, which was then ratified by his sister Elizabeth I.

The Forty Two Articles which were laid out by Cranmer can be found here - https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/dgehring/web/hist361/week5.html It is these which ended up as the Thirty Nine Articles which Elizabeth passed as laws. Whilst not always my choice of source, Wikipedia does have a very good article here which gives the details - Thirty-Nine Articles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The official Church of England website has this to say -

In the reign of Henry’s son Edward VI the Church of England underwent further reformation, driven by the conviction that the theology being developed by the theologians of the Protestant Reformation was more faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the Early Church than the teaching of those who continued to support the Pope. In the reign of Mary Tudor. the Church of England once again submitted to Papal authority. However, this policy was reversed when Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558.The religious settlement that eventually emerged in the reign of Elizabeth gave the Church of England the distinctive identity that it has retained to this day.

Elizabeth passed into law the Articles her brother had had drawn up by Thomas Cranmer with the exception of one, which was removed so it wouldn't upset her Catholic subjects. After she was excommunicated however, it was put back in again. The Church has, since that day, continued to develop and grow and change things as it meets the requirements of its teachings. I don't believe anyone from either Edward VI or Elizabeth's court would recognise the current Church of England as the same as the one they worshiped.

However, all of this really is irrelevant, the point I was making was to disagree with someone earlier in this thread who said England could have bypassed Edward VI

I think both Edward VI and Mary I could have usefully been bypassed too, for that matter.

 

[Zonk]

I have reintroduced myself to the Tudors (the Showtime miniseries). I stopped watching after the first season because of the historical inaccuracies (merging Mary and Margaret Tudor into one sister was it for me) but somehoe I ended up buying the first two seasons and despite the fudging of the facts, I have come to the conclusion that IMO Henry VIII was definitely one of the worst monarchs. I've read a couple of bios on Mary I, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and simply put he just wasn't a nice man.

Whatever good feelings and intentions he might have brought on his accession, I think by his death, the English were glad to see the end of him or should have been IMO.

I don't particularly care for how he treated ANY of his wives, even the one I don't particularly care for (Anne Boleyn). The way he treated Katharine of Aragon is just horrible, he framed Anne (she was guilty of many things but infidelity wasn't one of them) and sanctioned the killing of five innocent men along with her, Katharine Howard was just a silly girl who got caught up in a web that she wasn't emotionally mature to handle, I won't even talk about Thomas More, and his emotional neglect of his daughters Mary and Elizabeth definitely contributed to their own issues. I won't even get into the dissolution of the monastries, yes some of them were corrupt, but a lot of good and innocent people died on his watch.

So for me, its Henry VIII. Which is odd because he is definitely one of the more popular known British monarchs.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I have reintroduced myself to the Tudors (the Showtime miniseries). I stopped watching after the first season because of the historical inaccuracies (merging Mary and Margaret Tudor into one sister was it for me) but somehoe I ended up buying the first two seasons and despite the fudging of the facts, I have come to the conclusion that IMO Henry VIII was definitely one of the worst monarchs. I've read a couple of bios on Mary I, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and simply put he just wasn't a nice man.

Whatever good feelings and intentions he might have brought on his accession, I think by his death, the English were glad to see the end of him or should have been IMO.

I don't particularly care for how he treated ANY of his wives, even the one I don't particularly care for (Anne Boleyn). The way he treated Katharine of Aragon is just horrible, he framed Anne (she was guilty of many things but infidelity wasn't one of them) and sanctioned the killing of five innocent men along with her, Katharine Howard was just a silly girl who got caught up in a web that she wasn't emotionally mature to handle, I won't even talk about Thomas More, and his emotional neglect of his daughters Mary and Elizabeth definitely contributed to their own issues. I won't even get into the dissolution of the monastries, yes some of them were corrupt, but a lot of good and innocent people died on his watch.

So for me, its Henry VIII. Which is odd because he is definitely one of the more popular known British monarchs.

Uh, oh, I think you are going to provoke a rejoinder from ILB

But you make some good points. Henry definitely was NOT a nice man but I don't know if he was the worst monarch. Perhaps one without a conscience or at least he could sleep at night if he believed it was for the good of the country. I do agree he was selfish and vain.

 

[kbear87]

the worst, imo, were edward ii, henry vi, richard i (he could have been a great king but he didn't give a damn about england), john, stephen kept a bloody war going for many many years after he stole the crown from maude. henry viii wasn't a bad king--he was a bad person, plain and simple. also on the worst monarch list would have to be mary i. i find it so ironic that henry was sooo desperate to have a boy and he ended up giving england her greatest queen who was a better monarch than he was.

 

[Mumper]

Stephen, Richard I, Richard II, Henry VI, Mary I, James II, Edward VIII would be me worst list for a number of reasons - namely weakness, sell outs, not putting their country first being the main ones.


Henry VIII I see as one of the best monarchs in an absolute system simply for promoting English rights over foreign ones - he really supported the idea of England being controlled by Englishmen rather than have a foreigner interfere.

James II was very unfairly treated. Sellout? Not putting his country first? He didn't invite a foreign force to invade his country to put a war-mongering Dutchman on the throne. Read what some GOOD historians are finding out about the man, not the same recycled nonsense that has been spread about the man to justify removing him from his throne. He actually was very fair and VERY progressive. How does that make anyone a bad person?

Henry VIII was a cruel, and I mean CRUEL monarch. Petty, vindictive, and murderous.

Also, England controlled by Englishmen, what, until it was turned over to the Dutch and Germans?

 

[Mumper]

I don't know enough about all of them, especially the early ones, to judge them all fairly and as others have said I've heard Richard III was a victim of bad press more than anything...

You are actually SO right!! Lots of these people didn't get the benefit of good press.

Henry VIII literally had human beings hacked to death on VERY specious charges, and yet he's "Good King Hal"? Yet monarchs who were SINCERE in benefitting their country and people have been maligned by very bigotted historians for hundreds of years.

 

[nascarlucy]

Some of the things that British Monarchs did hundreds of years ago today would be considered unacceptable. Today these things would be considered very cruel, inhumane, and vicious. Of course, they felt what they were doing was justifiable. Some of course were more vicious than others. Most of them used the death penalty to keep people in line or used it against people they considered to be a threat to them. Just a wrong look or something one said could get you the death penalty. They did what they wanted and were above the law. Others would be punished for things that they did.

They believed in the divine right of kings and felt that God Blessed them because of who they were. I would imagine these monarchs were in for quite a suprise when they died and instead of going to heaven, they went somwhere else or had to answer for what they did. No human being is immuned from being judged by God.

Hard to say who was worse.

 

[Lenora]

I agree in some points,but they considered themselves Christians,but most of them were very far of Christian ideas.In fact,their deeds seemed sometimes Pagan

 

[Iluvbertie]

James II was very unfairly treated. Sellout? Not putting his country first? He didn't invite a foreign force to invade his country to put a war-mongering Dutchman on the throne. Read what some GOOD historians are finding out about the man, not the same recycled nonsense that has been spread about the man to justify removing him from his throne. He actually was very fair and VERY progressive. How does that make anyone a bad person?

Henry VIII was a cruel, and I mean CRUEL monarch. Petty, vindictive, and murderous.

Also, England controlled by Englishmen, what, until it was turned over to the Dutch and Germans?

Please name the 'GOOD' historians and what makes them 'GOOD'.

As an historian myself, who has studied the period in depth as part of my masters degree and read a number of pro and anti-James historians I stand by my opinion that he was not a good monarch.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I had always thought that James II was a weak and ineffectual monarch, not at all suited to reign, and it was a good thing that he fled the country.

 

[nascarlucy]

James II was forced out and his daughter and son in law William and Mary took over.

Agreed Lenora. Some of them were "so-called defender of the faith." but the way they lived and conducted themselves was anything but Christian or Christian like. Some people no doubt were executed due to the King or Queen defending the faith or using that as a justification for the death penalty.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The point with James II was 'why was he forced out'? What sort of King was he that made the government of the day take that action? Was there more to it than simply having a son who would be raised Roman Catholic?

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I did not mean to imply that James II fled willingly -- he was forced out and I think it was good that he was made to leave the country. IMO he was not a good monarch.